User login
Peer-reviewers for 2015
We thank those who reviewed manuscripts submitted to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine in the year ending December 31, 2015. Reviewing papers for scientific journals is an arduous task and involves considerable time and effort. We are grateful to these reviewers for contributing their expertise this past year. —Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Editor in Chief
We thank those who reviewed manuscripts submitted to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine in the year ending December 31, 2015. Reviewing papers for scientific journals is an arduous task and involves considerable time and effort. We are grateful to these reviewers for contributing their expertise this past year. —Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Editor in Chief
We thank those who reviewed manuscripts submitted to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine in the year ending December 31, 2015. Reviewing papers for scientific journals is an arduous task and involves considerable time and effort. We are grateful to these reviewers for contributing their expertise this past year. —Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Editor in Chief
Correction: HPV DNA test
In the April 2015 issue, on page 214 in the article by Jin XW, McKenzie ML, Yen-Lieberman B, “Can the test for human papillomavirus DNA be used as a stand-alone, first-line screening test for cervical cancer?”, the source for the information on predictive values was not cited. The final bulleted item should have read as follows:
- HPV testing by itself performed better than Pap-HPV cotesting, with positive predictive values of 12.25% vs 11.04% and negative predictive values of 99.58% vs 99.52% (data presented to the FDA Medical Devices Advisory Committee, Microbiology Panel. March 12, 2014. FDA Executive Summary).
This oversight has been corrected in the online version of the article.
In the April 2015 issue, on page 214 in the article by Jin XW, McKenzie ML, Yen-Lieberman B, “Can the test for human papillomavirus DNA be used as a stand-alone, first-line screening test for cervical cancer?”, the source for the information on predictive values was not cited. The final bulleted item should have read as follows:
- HPV testing by itself performed better than Pap-HPV cotesting, with positive predictive values of 12.25% vs 11.04% and negative predictive values of 99.58% vs 99.52% (data presented to the FDA Medical Devices Advisory Committee, Microbiology Panel. March 12, 2014. FDA Executive Summary).
This oversight has been corrected in the online version of the article.
In the April 2015 issue, on page 214 in the article by Jin XW, McKenzie ML, Yen-Lieberman B, “Can the test for human papillomavirus DNA be used as a stand-alone, first-line screening test for cervical cancer?”, the source for the information on predictive values was not cited. The final bulleted item should have read as follows:
- HPV testing by itself performed better than Pap-HPV cotesting, with positive predictive values of 12.25% vs 11.04% and negative predictive values of 99.58% vs 99.52% (data presented to the FDA Medical Devices Advisory Committee, Microbiology Panel. March 12, 2014. FDA Executive Summary).
This oversight has been corrected in the online version of the article.
Peer-reviewers for 2014
We thank those who reviewed manuscripts submitted to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine in the year ending December 31, 2014. Reviewing papers for scientific journals is an arduous task and involves considerable time and effort. We are grateful to these reviewers for contributing their expertise this past year.—Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Editor in Chief.
We thank those who reviewed manuscripts submitted to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine in the year ending December 31, 2014. Reviewing papers for scientific journals is an arduous task and involves considerable time and effort. We are grateful to these reviewers for contributing their expertise this past year.—Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Editor in Chief.
We thank those who reviewed manuscripts submitted to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine in the year ending December 31, 2014. Reviewing papers for scientific journals is an arduous task and involves considerable time and effort. We are grateful to these reviewers for contributing their expertise this past year.—Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Editor in Chief.
Correction: Quitting smoking
In the article "Quitting smoking: Still a challenge, but newer tools show promise," (Collins GB, Jerry JM, Bales R. Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82:39-48), the reference sequencing has been corrected.
In the article "Quitting smoking: Still a challenge, but newer tools show promise," (Collins GB, Jerry JM, Bales R. Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82:39-48), the reference sequencing has been corrected.
In the article "Quitting smoking: Still a challenge, but newer tools show promise," (Collins GB, Jerry JM, Bales R. Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82:39-48), the reference sequencing has been corrected.
Correction: Pulmonary tuberculosis
In the article “Rule out pulmonary tuberculosis: Clinical and radiographic clues for the internist” (Curley CA. Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82:32–38), on page 33, “Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine” has been corrected to “BCG vaccine.”
In the article “Rule out pulmonary tuberculosis: Clinical and radiographic clues for the internist” (Curley CA. Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82:32–38), on page 33, “Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine” has been corrected to “BCG vaccine.”
In the article “Rule out pulmonary tuberculosis: Clinical and radiographic clues for the internist” (Curley CA. Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82:32–38), on page 33, “Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine” has been corrected to “BCG vaccine.”
Peer-reviewers for 2013
We thank those who reviewed manuscripts submitted to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine in the year ending December 31, 2013. Reviewing papers for scientific journals is an arduous task and involves considerable time and effort. We are grateful to these reviewers for contributing their expertise this past year.
—Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Editor in Chief.
We thank those who reviewed manuscripts submitted to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine in the year ending December 31, 2013. Reviewing papers for scientific journals is an arduous task and involves considerable time and effort. We are grateful to these reviewers for contributing their expertise this past year.
—Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Editor in Chief.
We thank those who reviewed manuscripts submitted to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine in the year ending December 31, 2013. Reviewing papers for scientific journals is an arduous task and involves considerable time and effort. We are grateful to these reviewers for contributing their expertise this past year.
—Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Editor in Chief.
Correction: Paget disease of bone
In the article “Paget disease of bone: Diagnosis and drug therapy” in the July 2013 issue, an error occurred on page 458, under the subheading “Intravenous bisphosphonates.” The text read, “Pamidronate was approved in 1994. Although it does not contain nitrogen, it is quite effective in many patients with Paget disease.” Pamidronate in fact does contain nitrogen.
In the article “Paget disease of bone: Diagnosis and drug therapy” in the July 2013 issue, an error occurred on page 458, under the subheading “Intravenous bisphosphonates.” The text read, “Pamidronate was approved in 1994. Although it does not contain nitrogen, it is quite effective in many patients with Paget disease.” Pamidronate in fact does contain nitrogen.
In the article “Paget disease of bone: Diagnosis and drug therapy” in the July 2013 issue, an error occurred on page 458, under the subheading “Intravenous bisphosphonates.” The text read, “Pamidronate was approved in 1994. Although it does not contain nitrogen, it is quite effective in many patients with Paget disease.” Pamidronate in fact does contain nitrogen.